More Professors Ban Laptops in Class

AP writer Kathy Matheson reports on how more professors, particularly in law schools, are resorting to outright bans on laptops in class. The instructors cite lack of attentiveness and a noticeable decrease in class performance, among other reasons. Geek that I am, I doubt I surprise anyone by taking issue with these blanket policies.

As I am in the midst of finals, I have to say that my typed notes have saved me A LOT of time in distilling the information I need for exams. Even during class, particularly in Payment Systems, Procedure, and Evidence, students can save a lot of time having access to soft copies of the UCC and other codes/statutes/rules so text searches are done more quickly. Our Contracts class didn't even use a traditional casebook - all the course materials were provided via website in pdf form. Not only did that save students $$, but it also allowed us to focus more on the material and less on transcribing important passages to our final notes.

The laptops also benefit students who are less auditory and more visual learners, like myself. I can't explain why, but I process text information MUCH better than verbal information, and that trait is apparently not uncommon amongst the I-TJ personality types that typically do well in law (and engineering) . For other students, the pace may simply be too slow to keep their interest. For those who have actually digested the readings ahead of time, the lecture may not add much to their understanding of the material. Not that I think playing poker or solitaire during class is a respectful way to alleviate boredom, but if your poker playing students are on law review, what does taking away a potential distraction actually accomplish? As the article suggests, will a ban on crossword puzzles and other non-technical distractions, e.g., doodling, be equally enforced?

The reality is that today's workers (not just lawyers) are expected to multitask in an increasingly technical environment. People work best at different times of the day and maybe even at different times of the year. The way traditional law school exams are administered, the real incentive to prepare is only for a relatively brief 3-4 hour test at the end of the semester. Some students already have the aptitude and self-discipline to do quite well on these exams regardless of the way the course is taught. Denying these students access to tools that can actually improve their overall learning and productivity doesn't address the real problem that other students simply lack the motivation or discipline to focus on what is being said during class.

I suspect some professors might be surprised to find out that some of their poker players are actually their top students and some of their "attentive" students are quite the opposite. Perhaps the professors need to reconsider what incentives exist for students to be prepared and attentive in the first place. Such incentives can be quite different for 1Ls v. 3Ls and may have a lot more to do with a professor's teaching style than the existence of laptops in the class.